Print

Print


I agree with all who say such posts should not be censored.
What I found interesting about the website, to which I clicked from the
post, was that the paper-writers had selected ONLY women's studies,
African-American and American studies. I am pretty sure you could as easily
find bias which violates these academic freedom provisions in many other
departments - how about economics? - but Horowitz and his kin have certain
hot-button issues which mark them as rightwingers. I have absolutely no
objection to anyone taking issue with bias in the classroom, but then let
them be unbiased themselves. If it is wrong to steer students towards a
certain viewpoint, then it is wrong to steer them towards ANY viewpoint. One
point, surely, of tertiary education, is to teach youth to ask questions and
think for themselves. 
I find evidence of bias in the courses as discussed, indeed (although I
think if the courses were renamed to indicate their content, I'd have no
objection - eg: Socialist perspectives on labour in the USA instead of Intro
to American Studies); but the authors give their own agenda away quite
clearly, in part through the language they use, which is rather emotive:
bell hooks is a 'plodding ideologue'; feminism is a 'sectarian ideology'.
To Bob: Mann has a long history of rather vicious anti-feminism on this
forum, so Michael G has very good reason to go carefully!
Mandi

-----Original Message-----
From: Science for the People Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of herb fox
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Moderation note re Robt. Mann's post

I agree w/ Bob Ogden that it would be helpful for posters to indicate 
why they post a particular item.  Certainly it would be foolish to 
insulate ourselves from right wing activities and viewpoints, since one 
must know the enemy to be able to successfully combat it.
I also recognize, as i believe most on this list do, that the left is 
not homogeneous.  Therefore we should not discourage respectful 
discourse about important differences.  The not-yet-resolved struggles 
over political correctness may be one of these.  Coercion on the left is 
still coercion; and permitting insulting and degrading commentary is 
misguided liberalism.  Where the line between these is certainly open to 
civil discourse.
herb

Robert David Ogden wrote:
> I do not think the posting should be denied because the source is 
> right-wing or even evil; the Left hand needs to know what the Right 
> hand doeth.
> I do think Robt should preface his post with a note of his own as to 
> the reason for sharing this (as you did, Michael, when you posted the 
> nuke weapons article from a right-wing think tank (tho not so evil as 
> some).
> Based on his past statements and what he bold-faced, he has concerns 
> about a weakening of academic freedom, some of it because of what he 
> perceives as some sort of ideological hold of sinister feminist Post 
> Moderns, or something.
>
> The issue of academic freedom could be a question of general interest 
> on this list; it is certainly relevant to science and society. Does 
> ideological rigidity, even from a feminist or socialist perspective, 
> actually inhibit freedom of thought? Even if so, how does that compare 
> with the restrictions on direction of research as occurred during the 
> USA administrations between Reagen and George W. As before science 
> depts begged at the door hat in hand to the DOD, now they direct 
> grants to appear to serve DHS as well.
> Or is academic freedom a mere bourgeois value?
>
>  But don't just dump articles as if the intent is self-explanatory. 
> Posted articles should be a resource, not the self-evident basis for 
> discussion. I think the posters should at least let us know what issue 
> they'd like to explore.
>
> Greetings to all,
> Bob Ogden
>
>  
>
> --- On *Mon, 6/1/09, Michael H Goldhaber /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>     Subject: Moderation note re Robt. Mann's post
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>     Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 4:34 AM
>
>     Dear list members,
>
>     I'd like your opinions. 
>
>     There is no obvious insult contained in the post re the David
>     Horowitz organization mentioned in Robt. Mann's post, but as this
>     is the notorious right-wing organization, I am not very happy
>     about it being included in SftP's list. Should such messages be
>     refused in future? 
>
>
>
>     Best,
>
>     Michael
>     -------
>     Michael H. Goldhaber
>     SftP list moderator
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4121 (20090601) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4121 (20090601) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com